This USA Today article attempts to figure out why this happened: "153 counties that voted Democratic for president in 1996 and 2000 chose Bush in 2004; only 11 chose Democrat John Kerry after voting Republican in 1996 and 2000." And, is this evidence of a spreading of GOP dominance? The article examines four counties in four different states. It basically reports on the interviews of citizens they conducted, and, is therefore, imprefect, but still worth a look. The thrust of it, if there is one, is that the war and Iraq, and being a tough leader were the most important factors. Note the nice map.
Not unrelated, Democrats
are distancing themselves from teddy Kennedy’s remarks on Iraq as Vietnam, but are still calling for an explicit "exit strategy." Also note that Christopher Hitchens explains, once again, why Iraq is not Vietnam. The Vietnam/Iraq babble is, from any point of view, a busted flush. It’s no good. It’s a stiff. It’s passed on. It has ceased to be. It’s joined the choir invisible. It’s turned up its toes. It’s gone. It’s an ex-analogy.
At least they are asking WHY Bush won and not harping on WHY Kerry lost. Up till this, the stories have been written like, "hey, what went wrong? why did we loose?" In other words it was a given that Kerry was to win, and something went wrong and he lost. At least with this article the idea is about the fact that Bush won. Took three months though. Still, it’s a mystery to me why they are asking why.